Plumbers Local 305 (Stone & Webster)

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 18, 1989

297 N.L.R.B. 57 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

PLUMBERS LOCAL 305 (STONE & WEBSTER) 57 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Plumbers Local No. 305 (Stone & Webster En- gineering Corp. and Eastern Connecticut Me- chanical Contractors Association, Inc.) and Shane Phelan. Case 39-CB-660 October 18, 1989 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS HIGGINS AND DEVANEY On May 8, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached Supplemental De- cision and Order The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an opposition, and the Charging Party filed cross- exceptions 1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel The Board has considered the supplemental deci- sion and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 2 and conclusions and to adopt the recom- mended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, United As- sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Plumbers Local No 305, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order 'Counsel for the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions on behalf of chscriminatees Donald Fitzgerald and Mark Cotton 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Or 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings We adopt the judge s finding that Andy Hodge is a representative em- ployee for purposes of constructing a backpay formula in this case The Respondent challenged this, arguing that the only reason Hodge, a plumber, was referred on May 6, 1985, was that he was a "minority We note, however, that dispatcher Terrence Quinn admitted that he did not inquire into the minority status of everyone who signed the out-of-work book, thus making suspect his contention that he used minority status as a basis for his referral choices Rita C Lisko, Esq and Burton S Rosenberg, Esq , for the General Counsel Burton S Rosenberg, Esq , of New Haven, Connecticut, for the Respondent Leon M Rosenblatt, Esq , of West Hartford, Connecticut, for the Charging Party SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JuLuis Cowsl, Administrative Law Judge On Novem- ber 7, 1986, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order (282 NLRB 83), directing United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Plumbers Local No 305 (Respondent), to make whole Shane Phelan, Mark Cotton, and Donald Fitzgerald for their losses resulting from the unfair labor practices found to have been com- mitted by Respondent The parties, being unable to agree on the amount of backpay due to these individuals under the terms of the Board's Order, the officer in charge for the then Subregion 39 issued a backpay specification, dated August 31, 1987 Respondent filed an answer and amended answer to the specification Thereafter at the hearing on September 7, 1988, the Regional Director for Region 34 issued an amended backpay specification A hearing was held before me at Hartford, Cornecti- but, on September 6 and 7, 1988 All parties submitted briefs, which have been carefully considered on the entire record in the case and on my observation of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT A Background At the outset it should be noted that the Board, in its Order, clarified the Remedy, "to require the Respondent to make Phelan, Cotton, and Fitzgerald whole for earn- ings and benefits from jobs they would have obtained, absent discrimination by the Respondent, between Febru- ary 27 and June 25, 1985, including any job commencing during that period which continued beyond June 25, 1985" However, the General Counsel's amended back- pay specification provides that the backpay period for each of the named discnminatees began on May 6, 1985, contending that is the date on which each of them would have been referred to work for Stone & Webster Engi- neering Corp (Stone & Webster) at its Millstone Project in Waterford, Connecticut In addition the General Counsel contends that these jobs would have continued until September 30, 1985, at which time Stone & Webster reduced its work force Respondent claims that none of the discnminatees would have been referred on May 6, 1985, that the employee selected by General Counsel as a representative employee was not really representative, and as to each individual discnmmatee, Respondent also makes various contentions concerning mtenm earnings set forth in the amended specification I shall first discuss those issues applicable to all of the discnminatees, and then deal with issues such as interim earnings, and search for employment, individually with each of the discnmin- atees B The Method of Computation In computing the total backpay due to each discnmin- atee, the Regional Office employed a formula which uti- lizes a representative employee Respondent maintains an out-of-work book, an inspection of which indicates that 297 NLRB No 7 58 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If the three discnminatees had been permitted to sign that book on February 27, their names would appear before a Paul Russ' Russ' and another individual named Richard Brooks were referred to Stone & Webster on June 10, 1985 However eight people were referred on May 6 1985 and on the following day May 7, Andy Hodge was also referred It appears that the eight mdi viduals referred on May 6 were all classified as pipefit ters but Hodge was a plumber Inasmuch as the three discnminatees were all plumbers the compliance officer reasoned that Hodge should be considered as the representative/employee in this instance Moreover on the basis of the payroll records the compliance officer was able to determine that Hodge s wages were a median among the nine employees referred on May 6 and 7 In addition he was able to check that if Hodge was not used and he had instead chosen the eight referrals on May 6 and averaged their pay the resulting figure would be within a dollar or thereabouts of Hodge s earn ings Respondent disputes this designation of Hodge as a representative employee on the basis that Hodge was a minority employee and would not have been referred except for that reason, m view of the fact Stone & Web ster s request was for pipefitters and not plumbers Therefore it argues that the three discnmmatees being plumbers would not fit the request made by Stone & Webster Respondent further contends that Hodge was only referred because Stone & Webster constantly re quested that if any minorities or women were available Respondent should refer them no matter what their clas sification Respondent relied on the testimony of Terrance Quinn who, at the time in question, was business manager of Respondent as well as the dispatcher named in the col lective bargaining agreement Quinn stated that the Mill stone job of Stone & Webster lasted for about 13 years and at times employed as many as 1460 people from the Union His own local had a membership of only about 550 but the others came from locals situated all over the country He also stated that at times Stone & Webster did not distinguish between plumbers and pipefitters and at times they did However, he said that in the late summer of 1984 Stone & Webster started laying off some people and became more selective as to which skill they needed Further he said that in May 1985 Stone & Webster wanted instrumentation fitters Therefore he claims that on May 6 and 7 he sent only those with steamfitter/pipefitter licenses except for Hodge Quinn said that his present recollection of the telegrams he would receive was that they requested pipefitters In ad dition it appears that the telegrams all had the routine re quests for minority or women, if available On the other hand he indicated that every telegram used the same lan guage regarding minorities and almost all of them asked for pipefitters Quinn also conceded that Russi a plumb er, was sent to Stone & Webster on June 10 1985 as well as another individual Richard Brooks who signed the out of work book as a plumber and was sent on the same date Neither of them was a minority person George Hendry general foreman for pipefitters at Stone & Webster, testified on behalf of Respondent He said that he would make requests for employees during the period in question based on what the area supervisors apparently needed and would tell him to obtain He also stated that in May 1985 requests were being made for in strumentation people plus some plumbing otherwise needed in the control building He also said that no plumbers were assigned to instrumentation work in May 1985 but prior to that date plumbers who could do the work were used on instrumentation On this point the compliance officer testified that in the course of his investigation he had been informed by counsel for Stone & Webster that it did not make any distinction between plumbers and pipefitters Moreover, the documents supplied to him showed that all the em ployees referred were classified by Stone & Webster as pipefitters including Hodge and Russi whom we know to be plumbers I am inclined to discredit the testimony of Quinn who vacillated frequently regarding these mat ters Based on my own observation, I have no reason to depart from the finding of the administrative law judge in the underlying proceeding that Quinn s testimony was not credible And it may be noted at that hearing Quinn testified that every call from Stone & Webster was a re quest for pipefitters and/or pipefitter welders At that time Quinn also said that the Company would never ask for plumbers, but never refused any and he would send whomever was available As for Hendry s testimony it appears he was Just a general foreman who would call the Respondent for re ferrals based on whatever the area supervisors told him Other than he, no one from Stone & Webster of any higher echelon or authority appeared or testified at the hearing The only other contact with Stone & Webster in this record stems from the compliance officer s testi mony regarding his conversation on this matter with its counsel Since it appears that Hendry came voluntarily, and stated that he was a retired member of Respondent Local 305 I find that his testimony if not slightly biased at least was not sufficiently reliable Perhaps most impor tant with respect to the claim that Stone & Webster did not want plumbers it must be noted that besides the re ferral of Hodge a plumber subsequently on June 10, Russi and Brooks both plumbers, were referred Based on this record concerning the referrals on May 6 7 and 8, I find that Respondent has not established its conten tion that the referrals on these dates were solely restrict ed to pipefitters There remains Respondent s other contention that Hodge should not be considered as representative, be cause the only reason for his referral was his minority status We are not engaged in any proceeding regarding affirmative action or minority rights There is no prob lem with Hodge having been referred either as a mmon ty or for any other reason The fact remains that Hodge is a plumber and by chance, the total of his earnings as derived from payroll records was the median among the number of people referred on May 6 and 7 Accordingly, I find no reason why in those circumstances General Counsel cannot use his earnings as representative With regard to my finding as to the formula employed by the Compliance Officer which involves selection of a PLUMBERS LOCAL 305 (STONE & WEBSTER) 59 representative employee, it must be noted that a discn- minatee is entitled to receive what he would have earned had he been referred by Respondent in compliance with the Board's Order Of course it is understood that the gross earnings would be reduced by his interim earnings This is a broad principle not simple in its application There is no formula that would measure an exact figure since the discnminatees did not actually work during the period Therefore "the Board is vested with a wide dis- cretion in devising procedures and methods which will effectuate the purposes of the Act" NLRB v Brown & Root, Inc , 311 F 2d 447, 452 (8th Cir 1963) The formu- la employed by the General Counsel, a representative employee whose earnings are utilized through the back- pay period has been often approved by the Board See J H Rutter-Rex Mfg Co, 158 NLRB 1414 (1966) I find that its employment in this case is reasonable and proper Moreover, I find no merit to Respondent's alternate con- tention that Russi be used as a representative employee Aside from the date of his employment, June 10, as op- posed to May 6 during which a more representative group of individuals were referred, Russ' should not be used because he was shortly thereafter terminated for ab- senteeism Such an employee, would scarcely be consid- ered as representative In view of testimony to the effect that plumbers and pipefitters were used almost interchangeably, including many plumbers who could do instrumentation work, I find that Respondent did not fulfill its burden of proving otherwise on this record, and further that May 6, 1985, should be the date of referral rather than June 10, 1985 C The Individual Claimants There are a number of controlling principles applied by the Board and courts in backpay cases respecting the efforts of an individual claimant to seek work, his interim earnings and expenses incurred It is well established that willful loss of earnings is an affirmative defense and the burden has been described by the court of appeals in NLRB v Brown & Root, Inc. supra at 454, as follows In a backpay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of backpay due When that has been done, however, the burden is upon the employer to establish facts which would negative, the existence of liability to a given employee or which would mitigate that liabil- ity It follows that the failure of a discnminatee to make a reasonable search for employment constitutes an affirma- tive defense Marlene Industries Corp v NLRB, 440 F 2d 673, 674 (6th Cir 1971) A Respondent must prove that losses were "wilfully incurred" and a "clearly unjustifi- able refusal to take desirable new employment" Phelps- Dodge Corp v NLRB, 313 US 177, 198 (1941) An em- ployee must make a diligent or reasonable search for in- terim work NLRB v Ardium Mfg Co, 394 F 2d 420, 423 (1st Cir 1968) In evaluating whether an employer has sustained his burden "any uncertainty is resolved against the wrong doer whose conduct made an uncer- tainty possible" NLRB v Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co, 360 F 2d 569 (5th Cir 1966) Other applicable principles will appear in connection with contentions made by Re- spondent regarding specific claimants 1 Shane Phelan Based on the findings above, the backpay period of Phelan, as well as the other chscnminatees, began on May 6, 1985, and ended on September 30, 1985 when Stone & Webster reduced its work force The specifica- tion as amended indicates that during this period Phelan had no interim earnings A principal contention made by Respondent is that during the backpay period Phelan re- fused a certain number of referrals from local 76, his Local, when for a long time, he was at the top of the out-of-work list and had first choice of jobs James Sulzinski, called as a witness by Respondent, testified that he has been business manager of Local 76 since June 1985 The local has a referral hall which is nonexclusive and did not maintain records of referrals prior to July 1985 He was able to produce records which covered the period from July 20 to December 24, 1985 These reveal that on July 20, Phelan was offered a referral to Bristol Meyers, a company within the jurisdic- tion of Local 21, Plumbers, on July 23 to Base Mechani- cal, and on the same date, to Kay Company, or Acmat, and finally on August 20 to a job located in New York City Phelan did not accept any of these referral offers With respect to these offers, Sulzinski stated that, by his experience, Kay Company jobs are usually short and lasted only a week or two It appears that the same could be said with respect to all the proposed referrals to Phelan For example, a job at Base Mechanical was re- ceived on July 15 by a member who was No 2 on the list, and the record shows that his name appeared again near the end of the list on July 31 Phelan, as did others, refused the New York City referral because of the dis- tance to travel from home to the work site In his testimony, Sulzmski pointed out that an individ- ual at the top of the list, who takes referral to a job which may last only day, or slightly more, will drop to end of the list when that work is finished He also stated that he discussed this with Phelan and agreed that he should refuse these Jobs until a longer term position ap- peared Both of them were aware at that time that a job with Mattabassett, at a sewage treatment plant in Crom- well, Connecticut, which was scheduled to be opened shortly, was one that might last several years Obviously Phelan wished to wait for that This was also the reason why no referrals were offered to Phelan during the end of August and through September Another compelling reason was the fact that Sulzmski told Phelan he would receive the job of steward at the Mattabassett job which would ensure his working there for a lengthy period As to the Bristol Meyers' referral offer on July 20, this was in Local 21 jurisdiction, which pays a somewhat smaller wage rate than does Local 76 In addition, Phelan testified he had been informed by Sulzinski that if he turned down the Bristol Meyers job, it would be given to Fitzgerald who had a family while Phelan was unmarried Moreover, at Bristol Meyers, the contractor there, named Natkm, had refused employment to Phelan 60 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD several times The latter discussed this with Sulzmski and they agreed it would be futile Cameron Champlin the current Business Manager for Respondent Local 305, testified that the records indicat ed Phelan turned down a job on July 12 because it was for 75 percent of the contract rate Phelan himself testi fled, concerning this refusal, that the offer was given by telephone from Quinn who, interestingly enough said that It was an instrumentation job Quinn mentioned that this job was going to be worked at 100 feet in the air, and Phelan immediately turned it down At the hear ing he stated that he could not work at this height be cause of his artificial leg of which Quinn was well aware Phelan said that Quinn laughed and hung up As to the refusal by Phelan to accept what were obvi ously very short term jobs of perhaps at most 2 or 3 weeks and probably shorter while awaiting assignment to a job at Mattabassett as steward which could possibly last several years, I find this to be a reasonable decision in the circumstances The fact that a longer term job did not materialize during the backpay period is of course no fault of Phelan A discnmmatee may legitimately refuse a referral if he can reasonably expect to obtain employment in the future which would clearly be a better opportunity See Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co supra It is also noted that his choice in these instances was agreed by the business manager of the Union Ac cordmgly, I find no ment in Respondent s contention that Phelan removed himself from the labor market by refusing to accept referrals by Local 76 See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 2148 (Newberry Industrial), 281 NLRB 746 762 (1986) In addition I find that Phelan was not involved in a wilfull loss by refusing referral to a job in New York City which is quite a distance from his home This has been considered a reasonable rejection particularly as in this case where there is additionally an expectation of future employment of longer duration Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501 (Stone ci Webster), 266 NLRB 870 (1983) Finally I find no ment to Respondent s claim that Stone & Webster would not have employed Phelan if referred, because of prior felony conviction It is noted that Phelan as well as the other discnmmatees had worked for periods of time at the Millstone site To say that Stone & Webster would reject Phelan is speculative Moreover Respondent is not the employer in this in stance just the referral agent as it were and the only substantive evidence we could have of this contention would come about if Respondent referred Phelan and he was refused In conclusion I find that Respondent has not estab lished willful loss of interim earnings as it has alleged, and further find net backpay due to Shane Phelan mac cordance with the specification as finally amended at the hearing and as set forth in Appendix A annexed 2 Mark Cotton Respondent contends that the backpay period for Cotton ends on July 7, 1985 This is based on the fact that Cotton retrieved his travel card from Respondent on July 8 1985, and further, by so doing deprived himself of a referral shortly thereafter The reason for Cotton taking his card away from Local 305 is that a member of a carpenter local, in Cotton s case Local 76 is allowed only one travel card Not having obtained employment because Respondent had not referred him prior to that date Cotton needed the card in order to obtain employ ment in the jurisdiction of Local 21 As it happened after being referred by Local 21 the employer refused to hire Cotton In this instance Cotton was only seeking to mitigate Respondent s backpay liability and could not predict that the employer would not accept him I find this to be a very reasonable action on his part and fur ther find no ment to Respondent s contention on this ground As in the case of Phelan Respondent also contends that Cotton disqualified himself from backpay by his re fusal of referrals from Local 76 Dunng the penod in question Cotton was second to Phelan on the Local 76 list, and also was referred by Local 76 on July 20 to the Bnstol Meyers site in Local 21 junsdiction Actually Cotton accepted this referral but then was refused by the contractor there Cotton did not accept referrals by Local 76 to Kay Company or Acmet on July 23, or on July to Kay Company Being second on the list and knowing that Kay Company jobs were of very short du ration Cotton did not accept those referrals The next refusal as appears from Local 76 records was on August 26 with regard to referral to a job in New York City Thereafter on September 10 Cotton did accept referral via Local 21 to C N Flagg and worked there for a penod of time The same rationale with respect to these refusals by Cotton to accept the particular referrals applies to Cotton as with Phelan Sulzinski also testified concerning Cotton s position stating that if a man near the top of the list takes a 1 day job he goes to the bottom of the list at the end of that day Sulzinski noted that both Cotton and Phelan had been out of work a long time and holding out at the top of the list provided the best chance for a job of significant duration as was contemplated at the Mattabassett project I find therefore that the refusal of a few referrals to short penod jobs by Cotton, and in view of his having been turned down by one employer and actually worked at a job to which he has been referred on September 10 there is no unreasonable or willful loss of earnings on the part of Cotton Finally I note that Respondent on the basis of these pnor contentions argues that there should be no backpay period for Cotton This flies in the face of the established presumption that in the event of unlawful is charge by an employer or illegal refusal by a union to refer, some backpay is usually due Respondent has not overcome this presumption by any substantial evidence I find therefore that Cotton is entitled to the gross back pay less interim earnings as set forth in Appendix A an nexed hereto 3 Donald Fitzgerald As it did with Phelan Respondent contends that Fitz gerald s backpay period ends on July 12 1985 when he was referred and accepted a job with Arden Engineering PLUMBERS LOCAL 305 (STONE & WEBSTER) 61 which lasted about 2 weeks However, it has already been found that Fitzgerald should have been referred on May 6 or 7 to a position which would have ended at the end of September when Stone & Webster laid off many of its people Moreover with regard to Respondent's contention that Stone & Webster would not have accept- ed Fitzgerald because of a prior history of absenteeism, I have already denied such contention on the grounds that this is pure speculation What occurred at one time need not necessarily reoccur at another time, in any case, Re- spondent should have referred him and permit Stone & Webster to make the decision whether to hire him Moreover in Fitzgerald's case, the record shows that he was also a welder, a classification even more in demand by Stone & Webster The record reveals very little to indicate that Fitzger- ald did not make an earnest effort to obtain employment Actually based on the records produced by Sulzinski of Local 76, he accepted every referral from that Local except two One of these was to Seabrook in New Hampshire and no evidence has been submitted to indi- cate why he did so He also refused the referral, as did the other discnminatees, to New York City, because of the distance Otherwise he accepted whatever referrals he could obtain, and personally submitted records of ad- ditional employment which were not reported for one reason or another in the original specification In any event he was not only listed constantly on the Local 76 out-of-work list, but he also applied and received unem- ployment insurance for periods of time while unem- ployed The requirements to remain eligible for unem- ployment benefits have been held to be sufficient to satis- fy the requirements to remain eligible under the Act J H Rutter-Rex Mfg Co, 194 NLRB 19, 24 (1971) I find that Fitzgerald made reasonable efforts to obtain employment during the backpay period Respondent contends that Fitzgerald's backpay should be reduced as a result of certain plumbing work he did for Comstock & Ferry Company Fitzgerald testified that he received rent free while residing at a premises owned by Comstock, which would be valued at $450 per month He also testified that he worked 2-4 hours a week for Comstock either in the evening or at other times that he could fit it in Fitzgerald stated that this was an arrangement of long duration which existed even prior to the backpay period The Board does not consid- er earnings from second jobs, or odd ones such as this, as amounts to be included as interim earnings This is in such situations, as this apparently was, that they would be received while the discnmmatee was employed at his full-time regular job Accordingly, I would exclude the Comstock earnings from the interim earnings reported in the specification Rice Lake Creamery Go, 151 NLRB 1113, 1114 (1965), enfd 365 F 2d 888 (DC Cir 1966) I conclude therefore that Fitzgerald be awarded back- pay in the amount set forth in Appendix A THE REMEDY For the reasons described above, I find that Respond- ent's obligations to the discnmmatees herein will be dis- charged by the payment to them of the respective amounts set forth in Appendix A Such amounts shall be payable plus interest to be computed in the manner set forth in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 1 The gross backpay figures in Appendix A are based on those set forth in the Specification as amended at the hearing Appendix A states the figures for each quarter in which backpay is found to be due In addition the specification as amended at the hearing included payments to be made by Respondent to the Connecticut Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Fund on behalf of each discnminatee at the rate of $1 40 per hour for each hour the discnmmatee would have worked during each calendar quarter of the backpay period It also provided for pension contributions to the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund for each discn- minatee at the rate of $1 10 per hour calculated in the same manner These contributions are set forth in Ap- pendices B and C, respectively Finally it is noted that the amounts and rates of these contributions have been stipulated at the hearing to be correct as set forth in the amended backpay specification On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I issue the following recommended 2 ORDER The Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry, Plumbers Local No 305, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make the individual discnminatees in- volved in this proceeding whole by payment to them of the following amounts together with interest to be com- puted in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision, and continuing until the amounts are paid in full but minus tax withholding required by Federal and state laws Shane Phelan $29,566 Donald Fitzgerald 22,829 Mark Cotton 28,213 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay the SUM of $4364 to the Connecticut Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Fund, and the sum of $3427 to the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund These amounts are to be divided and credited to the accounts of Shane Phelan, Donald Fitzgerald, and Mark Cotton as shown on Ap- pendices B & C, respectively Under New Horizons Interest is computed at the short-term Federal rate • for the underpayment of taxes as set forth in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest accrued before January 1, 1987 (the effec- live date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes 62 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A Name Yr and Qtr Gross Backpay Interim Earnings Net Interim EarningsExpenses Net Backpay Shane Phelan 1985-2 $11 120 0 $98 0 $11 218 1985-3 18 348 0 0 0 18 348 Total $29 566 Donald Fitzgerald 1985-2 11 120 0 0 0 $11 120 1985-3 18 348 $6639 0 $11 709 11 709 Total $22 829 Mark Cotton 1985-2 11 120 0 0 0 $11 120 1985-3 18 348 1 255 0 1 255 17 093 Total $28 213 APPENDIX B Contributions to Connecticut Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Fund Name Yr and Qtr Hrs Worked by Hrs Worked byHodge Discriminatee Net Hours Hourly Rate Amt Due Shane Phelan 1985-2 405 5 0 405 5 $1 40 $568 1985-3 706 2 0 706 2 140 989 Total $1 557 Donald Fitzgerald 1985-2 405 5 0 405 5 1 40 $568 1985-3 706 2 155 551 2 140 772 Total $1 340 Mark Cotton 1985-2 405 5 0 405 2 1 40 $568 1985-3 706 2 64 642 2 140 899 Total $1 467 APPENDIX C Contributions to the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund Name Hrs Worked by Hrs Worked byYr and Qtr Hodge Discriminatee Net Hours Hourly Rate Amt Due Shane Phelan 1985-2 405 5 0 405 5 $1 10 $446 1985-3 706 2 0 706 5 110 777 Total $1 223 Donald Fitzgerald 1985-2 405 5 0 405 5 110 $446 1985-3 706 2 155 551 2 110 606 Total $1 052 Mark Cotton 1985-2 405 5 0 405 5 110 $446 1985-3 706 2 64 642 2 110 706 Total $1152